Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Dual Playmakers - Bluster or Essential?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruce_ma gooshvili" data-source="post: 977604" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>How much creativity you need all depends on the strength of your pack from my perspective. The weaker the pack, the more creativity you need (including in the pack). It doesn't matter if it is a 10/12 or something else, but World Rugby want tries in open play to be the determining factor to in matches, so I think you need to have that as your objective to be successful. Even the Boks showed this in the final, as they ran from deep a couple of times and selected (and actually utilised) wingers with pure x-factor to counter-balance the defensive orientated centres. </p><p></p><p></p><p>A couple of examples from my perspective of sides without dominant packs:</p><p></p><p><strong>Wales</strong> - not enough creativity / attacking threat with Biggar and Halfpenny in the semi-final and likely would have lost comfortably had the Boks adopted the tactics they used in the final. The Welsh selection left only Adams, Garerh Davies and Tipuric as real attack orientated threats. Three players isn't enough. Add in Anscombe/Patchell OR Liam Williams and they'd have had the absolute minimum creativity to compete heavily in the tournament (including in the semi). If Gatland could have kept Anscombe AND Liam I think they would have made the final. </p><p></p><p><strong>NZ</strong> - Mo'unga, ALB, Goodhue/Crotty are all solid players, but are not as creative as the players they have replaced in those positions. They could all be very good AB players, but not when all together in the same combination. BB was not enough of a compensation at FB because he wasnt getting enough touches and had unproven players alongside him on the backline. I think DMac or Jordie at 15 (both goal kickers) and BB at 10 would have meant the creative limitations at centre and the wings would have been overcome. </p><p></p><p></p><p>And a couple examples with (what most of is thought had) fairly dominant packs:</p><p></p><p><strong>England</strong> - did not have enough creativity / passing ability with Teo and JJ. Spent years going down an evolutionary dead end with both of them. I was convinced that Slade OR Ford would give enough panache to match the athleticism in the rest of the side. I still believe this despite their performance in the final, which I think had to do with factors other than team selection. </p><p></p><p><strong>France</strong> - their 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14 is possibly the most explosive in world rugby at this RWC. Vakatawa was a revelation to me at centre and he and Fickou both have physicality and flair. Is there almost too much flair there, which may explain some inconsistency? I dont have them figured out, but can't wait to see them in the 6N because there is so much potential in the above combination and you could have very safe / reliable picks at 11 & 15 and in the pack and still have enough in hand to unlock top defences. Their big issue is that they need a goal kicker, but cannot afford any more flair (like Ramos) in their backs or they will become even more unpredictable or weak defensively.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 977604, member: 74121"] How much creativity you need all depends on the strength of your pack from my perspective. The weaker the pack, the more creativity you need (including in the pack). It doesn't matter if it is a 10/12 or something else, but World Rugby want tries in open play to be the determining factor to in matches, so I think you need to have that as your objective to be successful. Even the Boks showed this in the final, as they ran from deep a couple of times and selected (and actually utilised) wingers with pure x-factor to counter-balance the defensive orientated centres. A couple of examples from my perspective of sides without dominant packs: [B]Wales[/b] - not enough creativity / attacking threat with Biggar and Halfpenny in the semi-final and likely would have lost comfortably had the Boks adopted the tactics they used in the final. The Welsh selection left only Adams, Garerh Davies and Tipuric as real attack orientated threats. Three players isn't enough. Add in Anscombe/Patchell OR Liam Williams and they'd have had the absolute minimum creativity to compete heavily in the tournament (including in the semi). If Gatland could have kept Anscombe AND Liam I think they would have made the final. [B]NZ[/b] - Mo'unga, ALB, Goodhue/Crotty are all solid players, but are not as creative as the players they have replaced in those positions. They could all be very good AB players, but not when all together in the same combination. BB was not enough of a compensation at FB because he wasnt getting enough touches and had unproven players alongside him on the backline. I think DMac or Jordie at 15 (both goal kickers) and BB at 10 would have meant the creative limitations at centre and the wings would have been overcome. And a couple examples with (what most of is thought had) fairly dominant packs: [B]England[/b] - did not have enough creativity / passing ability with Teo and JJ. Spent years going down an evolutionary dead end with both of them. I was convinced that Slade OR Ford would give enough panache to match the athleticism in the rest of the side. I still believe this despite their performance in the final, which I think had to do with factors other than team selection. [B]France[/b] - their 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14 is possibly the most explosive in world rugby at this RWC. Vakatawa was a revelation to me at centre and he and Fickou both have physicality and flair. Is there almost too much flair there, which may explain some inconsistency? I dont have them figured out, but can't wait to see them in the 6N because there is so much potential in the above combination and you could have very safe / reliable picks at 11 & 15 and in the pack and still have enough in hand to unlock top defences. Their big issue is that they need a goal kicker, but cannot afford any more flair (like Ramos) in their backs or they will become even more unpredictable or weak defensively. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Dual Playmakers - Bluster or Essential?
Top